<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#330033">
Hi,<br>
<br>
While it is convenietnt to thinl of IANA as a finction as opposed to
a department of even a n independent entity, we need to remember
that it is more that just a funciton. It can also be seen as:<br>
<br>
- a trained and effective staff<br>
- a set of databases<br>
- a well know domain name<br>
- a user interface<br>
- a set of MOUs and SLAs<br>
- &c.<br>
<br>
All of which could theoretically be replaced if one thinks of it as
a relocatable function. On the other hand if it is thought of as an
implemented function with resources and interfaces, it is in
practice perhaps a bit more substantive that a function.<br>
<br>
avri<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 15-Oct-14 23:32, Kris Seeburn wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:437E71A5-E137-4830-A6B2-FFB1F9C85E84@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Greg very much well said. Not to say that IANA is not an entity but a Function.
A function that directly impacts on the Number community. I agree with what some
of you said lets look at all options. I would argue that we need to see all the
options quite fast as well to really move things forward.
For information sake the NRO/ IETF or if we want to be sure consisted of the as
they loosely called themselves the I* leaders:-
AFRINIC, ARIN, APNIC, IAB, ICANN, IETF, ISOC, LACNIC, RIPE NCC, W3C & LACTLD -
should be ccTLD
There focus is on Numbers and we have to agree to that they have a particular
bit in what makes it work in the addressing and infrastructure part. What APNIC
have come up is not sole to APNIC but something that these I* leaders have
agreed onto. It is less complicated for them as i suggested before.
For interest sake i am attaching some information docs. And a bit of the NRO
view on accountability:
/The NRO does not believe that the contract with the US government should be
replaced with a similar mechanism at a global level, therefore a guiding
principle is specifically not to create any "superior" structure or
organisation; rather ICANN's accountability should be defined in terms of
transparent agreements with ICANN stakeholders, in which roles and
responsibilities, and dispute resolution and arbitration mechanisms are fully
defined. We believe that a failure by ICANN to abide clearly by established
accountability mechanisms, and in particular by defined dispute resolution and
arbitration mechanisms should have clear consequences, and therefore that
arbitration mechanisms should be binding. Furthermore, they must be
implementable and effective upon ICANN, regardless of its final structure or
locale.The guiding principles for defining or strengthening these accountability
mechanisms should be: that they are transparent, implementable and open to
improvement; and that they operate in the interests of the open, stable and
secure operation of the Internet./
I hope this gives away some input.
</pre>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">
> On Oct 16, 2014, at 4:47 AM, Greg Shatan <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com"><gregshatanipc@gmail.com
></a> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com"><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com></a>> wrote:
>
> I don't think it's necessary or desirable to split IANA into 3 IANAs (or 2
> IANAs, since the other two communities are leaving IANA "as is" and not
> splitting it up). It may not even be possible. (Those with more operational
> knowledge of IANA can weigh in here.)
>
> Without excluding possible solutions, our fundamental task is to transition
> stewardship of IANA from the NTIA to some other group, entity or process, not
> to transition IANA.
>
> Greg Shatan
>
> On Oct 15, 2014 5:10 PM, "WUKnoben" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de"><wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de
></a> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de"><mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de></a>> wrote:
>
> Guru,
> 1. I’m not able to comment on any hypothetical approaches rather than
> looking forward to the incoming substantial proposals.
> 2. I’m in agreement that all possible options have to be taken into
> consideration diligently.
> 3. In order to achieve a common consensus based proposal there is
> obviously extensive communication needed between the 3 lines already
> throughout this process and not after the different proposals have been
> submitted to the ICG. I’m hoping that your hypotheses are still hypotheses.
>
> Best regards
>
> Wolf-Ulrich
>
> *From:* Guru Acharya <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:gurcharya@gmail.com"><mailto:gurcharya@gmail.com></a>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 15, 2014 3:53 PM
> *To:* WUKnoben <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de"><mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de></a>
> *Cc:* Gomes, Chuck <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:cgomes@verisign.com"><mailto:cgomes@verisign.com></a> ; Krishna Seeburn
> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com"><mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com></a> ; <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a>
> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org"><mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org></a>
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Names Community vs the other two communities
> What do you mean when you say that all three proposals have to be treated
> in the same way?
> Hypothetically, consider that the current proposals of the numbers
> (AOC+SLA with NRO) and protocol (MOU with IETF) community are their final
> proposal to the ICG. Also consider that Option (i) mentioned in this mail
> is the final proposal of the names community to the ICG.
> I believe that all three proposals can co-exist as the new entity
> suggested in Option (i) will only have oversight over the IANA that
> relates to the names community - assuming we can structurally separate the
> IANA of the three communities. Do you think that such structural
> separation of the three IANAs is feasible?
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 3:34 AM, WUKnoben <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de"><wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de
></a> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de"><mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de></a>> wrote:
>
> +1
> and btw the reference line quotes “Names Community *vs* the other two
> communities”.
> There is nothing “versus” between these 3 lines. They have to be
> treated in the same way regarding the outcome of a _common_ proposal.
>
> Best regards
>
> Wolf-Ulrich
> *From:* Gomes, Chuck <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:cgomes@verisign.com"><mailto:cgomes@verisign.com></a>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 15, 2014 2:43 PM
> *To:* Krishna Seeburn <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com"><mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com></a> ; Guru Acharya
> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:gurcharya@gmail.com"><mailto:gurcharya@gmail.com></a>
> *Cc:* <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org"><mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org></a>
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Names Community vs the other two
> communities
>
> Forgive me for being slow but it is not obvious to me that option 1
> makes sense, i.e., ‘create a new legal entity’. I see it as one
> option, but before we decide it is the best option we should explore
> as many options as possible. Even if we eliminate the other options
> mentioned below, we should not assume that we have considered all
> possible options.____
>
> ____
>
> Chuck____
>
> ____
>
> *From:*cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org
> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org"><mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org></a>
> [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>
> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org"><mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org></a>] *On Behalf Of *Krishna Seeburn
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 15, 2014 5:30 PM
> *To:* Guru Acharya
> *Cc:* <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org"><mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org></a>
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Names Community vs the other two
> communities____
>
> ____
>
> Thanks for those acharya.____
>
> ____
>
> IETF and the RIRs were already working in that direction from the very
> start and even before the official formal announcement from icann /
> ntia. These were already talks and were well ahead of anything. ____
>
> ____
>
> The option 1 makes sense and in fact i am wondering how much more
> talks we will have before we can decide on what is more than obvious.____
>
> ____
>
> The names community however have a different but more challenging
> approach. As much as we are technical but we have a different impact
> on the community. Our challenges are way different for sure. ____
>
> ____
>
> But good thinking .., perhaps yes a good way forward. But a consensus
> in way forward is what matters and we all need to agree and that is
> the bigger challenge. In whatever we come up with we will need a mid
> platform to agree with everyone to some point.____
>
> ____
>
> My 2 cents____
>
>
> /Kris Seeburn/____
>
> skype: kris_seeburn30____
>
> Linkedin:mu.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn
> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://mu.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn"><http://mu.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn></a>____
>
>
> On Oct 16, 2014, at 1:10 AM, Guru Acharya <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:gurcharya@gmail.com"><gurcharya@gmail.com
></a> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:gurcharya@gmail.com"><mailto:gurcharya@gmail.com></a>> wrote:____
>
> How the names community approach will differ from the approach
> adopted by the numbers community and protocols community?____
>
> ____
>
> Numbers Community: APNIC has reached consensus on its proposal.
> According to the proposal, IANA will continue to reside in ICANN.
> It proposes to replace NTIA oversight with a Service Level
> Agreement (SLA) and Affirmation of Commitment (AOC) between NRO
> and ICANN.____
>
> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.slideshare.net/fullscreen/apnic/report-ianatransition/1">www.slideshare.net/fullscreen/apnic/report-ianatransition/1</a>
> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.slideshare.net/fullscreen/apnic/report-ianatransition/1"><http://www.slideshare.net/fullscreen/apnic/report-ianatransition/1></a>____
>
> ____
>
> Protocols Community: The IETF draft proposal suggests that no
> structural changes are required as a result of the transition. The
> MOU between ICANN and the IETF community will continue to govern
> the existing relationship. Again, IANA will continue to reside in
> ICANN.____
>
> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-00____">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-00____</a>
>
> ____
>
> Therefore, neither the numbers community, nor the protocol
> community appear to be in the direction of suggesting a new MS
> Oversight Entity to replace NTIA and its oversight. Merely
> contracts between existing entities will be updated to replace
> NTIA oversight.____
>
> ____
>
> Can the names community adopt a similar approach? Can a
> contractual agreement (SLA/AOC/MOU) between ICANN and GNSO/CCNSO
> be expected to replace NTIA oversight?____
>
> ____
>
> Clearly NO! This approach can not be adopted by the names
> community because the names community resides within ICANN, which
> is also the IANA operator. Specifically, GNSO and CCNSO are
> essentially subsets of ICANN, and therefore a contractual
> agreement (SLA/AOC/MOU) between ICANN and GNSO/CCNSO can not be
> expected to replace NTIA oversight.____
>
> ____
>
> Therefore, it is essential to either____
>
> ____
>
> Option (i): create a new legal entity, which has a contractual
> oversight relationship with ICANN. This would be similar to
> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/08/04/students-school-faculty-on-iana-transition-the-meissen-proposal/____">http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/08/04/students-school-faculty-on-iana-transition-the-meissen-proposal/____</a>
>
> ____
>
> Option (ii): expect ICANN to self-regulate____
>
> ____
>
> Option (iii): make a new legal entity comprising of CCNSO and GNSO
> that is structurally independent of ICANN and require that new
> entity to enter into a contractual oversight agreement
> (SLA/AOC/MOU) with ICANN.____
>
> ____
>
> From the above three options, clearly option (ii) is not
> acceptable because of the lack of trust in the ICANN enhanced
> accountability process.____
>
> ____
>
> I also feel that option (iii) is not feasible because the CCNSO
> and GNSO are heavily integrated with ICANN and structural
> separation of these two communities from ICANN will be
> in-feasible.____
>
> ____
>
> Also, from the Jordan Carter document, the option on page 7 can be
> discarded, which makes ICANN the oversight body, as IANA will
> continue to reside in ICANN, as clearly suggested by the proposals
> of the protocols and numbers community.____
>
> ____
>
> Therefore, option (i) is clearly the only option available with
> the names community.____
>
> ____
>
> Regards,____
>
> Acharya____
>
> ____
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org"><mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org></a>
> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship____">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship____</a>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org"><mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org></a>
> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org"><mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org></a>
> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org"><mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org></a>
> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a>
Kris Seeburn
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com">seeburn.k@gmail.com</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com"><mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com></a>
*
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/">www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/"><http://www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/></a>
</pre>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>